Satheeshkumar P.C. vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Sudha, J

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime no.1077/2021 of Erumapetty Police

Station alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506(ii), 294(b) and 308 IPC and Section 4(2)(j) of Kerala

Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, 2021.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner/accused was in quarantine as he had tested Covid positive. The informant, who is a Panchayath Member,

went to the house of the accused on 01.09.2021 at 10.00 a.m. for providing him with medicines. The accused, due to his enmity towards the informant,

on account of some delay in providing medicines to him, wrongfully restrained the informant, abused him by calling him obscene words, brandished a

sword resulting in injuries on the neck of the informant. The accused also threatened the informant with dire circumstances. Hence, the accused is

alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections.

The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the offences alleged are serious; that the investigation is at its initial

stage and that the petitioner/accused if released on bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner/accused threatening the witnesses in this case and

thereby tampering with the evidence of this case.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the petitioner/accused is innocent of the offences alleged against him. He has

no criminal antecedents and that he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and that he will not in any way interfere with the course of

investigation.

Heard both sides. Perused the records.

It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner/accused had assaulted the informant with absolutely no provocation. The informant had

reached the house of the petitioner/accused only for the purpose of providing him with medicines as the latter was in quarantine. Not only had the

accused abused him by calling him obscene words but also tried to assault and cause injuries to him with no less a weapon than a sword. In the

circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/accused as there is every possibility of the petitioner/accused

interfering with the investigation by threatening the witnesses in this case.

In the result, the request for pre-arrest bail is rejected and the application is dismissed.